Tragically, international parental child abduction is a growing epidemic that causes both short-term and long-term hardships and difficulties for the innocent children who are victimized by their parental abductors. Courts, child psychologist and therapist from around the world, and children-victims everywhere now mature and old enough to speak about their abduction experience all conclude the same thing: the parental child abduction of a minor is a grave and highly offensive criminal act that includes violations of criminal statues on child abduction, as well as laws governing child abuse and child neglect. Unfortunately, many of these types of abductions occur since the abducting parent’s actions are typically directed at their spouse or former spouse, whereas, the abducting parent uses the child as a pawn to seek revenge and spite against the other parent.
On the most part, abduction around the world has grown as a result of the world becoming more closely connected. As individuals from different countries marry, have children, and unfortunately divorce, there is a propensity for one of the former spouses to return to their country of origin – typically with their child or children, even though the child or children were not born in the country of one of their parent’s origin (often, the child might have dual citizenship rights). In addition, there is a growing number of divorcees who seek to relocate abroad their nation’s boundaries with their child or children, regardless of the child’s other parent’s rights to have the child in their life. And finally, and sadly, children are too often used as financial pawns for one parent against another. In certain cases, the abduction of a child across international borders has a completely different material motive other than the relocation of the child for a better life: it has to do with money, power, and control of the other parent.
This area is broken down into three critical sections as follows:
A: The Courts
B: Law Enforcement
C: The Hague Convention
There is unquestionably an opportunity to curtail the number of international child abductions that occur around the world each year, and in particular, those originating or landing in The United States. The following suggestions will significantly reduce the number of international child abductions.
A. Courts:
1. Local family court judges need to become more aware and educated on all matters of potential international child abduction including the techniques and legal loopholes potential parental child abductors and their lawyers may use to facilitate a child's abduction across a countries borders, or, how once a child is taken to foreign country, the various legal methods a violating, abducting parent may pursue in their attempt to move jurisdiction of the child’s custody and access from the place of original habitual residency of the child to the country that the child was taken to. According to many professional studies and surveys, a large percentage of judges and lawyers are not adequately educated or familiar with the complex legal nuances of international child custody and international child abduction. In the failures to understand jurisdictional law, and failures to direct stringent guidelines when dealing with a potential or actual abduction, judges and the courts they oversee have unknowingly helped facilitate and enabled abducting parents act in the cruelest way against their own child.
2. Courts and judges overseeing child custody cases must create stringent guidelines that will address the wrongful removal, abduction, and retention of a child traveling interstate or across a country's borders prior to any travel by a child and parent. If a non-traveling parent expresses concern to a court that there is a possibility that their child may be abducted and not returned to the habitual residency of the minor, the courts must create ironclad guidelines on how to deal with such action. Automatic triggers that will ensure criminal prosecution of an abducting parent must be included and agreed to by all parties, including the courts, prior to a parent and a child (or children) being permitted to travel outside of the country of the child’s habitual residency. It would be wise for the court located in the child’s habitual residency to mandate for the traveling parent to file with the court in the jurisdiction of the country to which they are visiting, the custody and return orders of the court overseeing the child’s welfare. The traveling parent must agree to have specific language in any court issued order that specifically states that they are only visiting the country that they are traveling to, that they are not relocating, that the other parent does not give permission for them to take the child and relocate to a foreign country, and finally, that they agree to the courts orders issued by the court of habitual residency of the child to be held accountable under criminal law of the nation where the child lived previously, and that they agree to waive any rights to fight criminal extradition if there is an arrest warrant issued due to their failure to return the child to his/her native country by a pre-determined date set by the court of habitual jurisdiction. These orders must then be registered or ‘mirrored’ in a court of jurisdiction where the child is visiting prior to any travel.
3. Courts must treat parental child abduction in the same manner as a non-parental child abduction: as a grave and damaging crime against a defenseless minor. In fact, the majority of child psychologist experts familiar with the matter of parental child abduction, and who have issued reports and studies, have concluded that the potential damage done on a young child who has experienced parental child abduction’s overall mental health can be significantly more damaged in comparison to non-parental child abductions due to the heavy breach of trust and acts of parental alienation (including child abuse and child neglect) enacted by the abducting parent.
4. Courts must legally hold accountable both parties in a custody dispute for any acts of contempt of court or perjury when dealing with the welfare and safety of a child. There must be a zero tolerance level for acts of disobedience or lies.
5. Courts must legally hold accountable lawyers of parental child abductors who knowingly assist their clients in the abduction or wrongful retention of a child outside of the jurisdiction of habitual residency of the child. Accountability includes a lawyer's knowledge and assistance in the predetermined and conspired act of their client to abduct a child or to violate a jurisdiction's custody laws or a court’s existing orders and attempt to change jurisdiction of a case from the child's habitual residency to the country where the child physically is located.
6. Courts must uphold mandatory criminal prosecution and sentencing of all parental child abductors. The act of criminal parental child abduction includes the breach of most nations and their local courts criminal codes on child abduction, child abuse, and child neglect. In addition, there are typically a high number of contempt of court violations and deceitful acts of perjury enacted by an abducting parent. Their actions must be held accountable. In doing so, a clear message will be sent to parents contemplating an abduction: that if they get caught, they will face serious prosecution of an assortment of criminal charges. After all, the cruel and damaging criminal act of international child abduction directed toward a defenseless child surely is not ‘in the best interest of the child’.
7. The Courts must order for a financial bond to be placed by a traveling parent who intends to take a child across international borders, and who’s spouse has objected to such travel due to fear of a non-return. Guidelines to determine a troubling concern include but should not be limited to a parent's previous abduction history or visitation denials to the other parent; and, a traveling parent's ability to facilitate an abduction.
8. Assailants who assist a parental child abductor must be criminally and civilly held responsible for any assistance given to a parental child abductor.
9. Parental child abductors must be held financially responsible for all costs associated with the legal recovery and re-unification of the victimized child and left behind parent.
10. Courts must unilaterally reinforce the universally accepted laws that child abduction in all forms is severe child abuse and child neglect. Any form of child abduction is not in the best interest of a child, and must be prosecuted.
11. Courts must not rush to judgment when dealing with any issues regarding custody and mobility, and must weigh heavily the fact that a child has an equal right to have a loving and caring and ongoing day-to-day care relationship with both parents so long as both parents are capable and desirous of doing so.
B. Law Enforcement:
1. Law enforcement officers must stop deferring a child's detention or wrongful removal in breach of a court issued child custody order back to the courts of jurisdiction overseeing a child custody case if a jurisdiction's criminal code that deals with such violations has been breached. By not acting in matters of wrongful child detention or wrongful removal, law enforcement in fact accommodates parental violators in their criminal acts of child abduction, child neglect, and child abuse. These acts of wrongful detention or wrongful removal are illegal acts of child abuse or child neglect. Law enforcement must not systematically and unilaterally choose not to act on such violations – which across North America and the rest of the world, appears to be the standard protocol. A violation of a court’s orders or a clear violation of a jurisdiction’s criminal code is not ‘A Family Court Matter’ if laws have been created dealing with the matter are violated. A law enforcement officer cannot simply decide on her or his own which criminal offenses they will act on. Unfortunately, this is the case all too often when dealing with a child’s custody and retention, and it has led to a deep mistrusting sense of justice for many when dealing. Anarchy only occurs when the courts or law enforcement choose not to uphold its own laws. This must stop.
2. Law enforcement must act immediately when a child is abducted or wrongfully detained.
3. Law enforcement must report that a child is missing immediately into all national databases (in The United States: NCIC, and in Canada: CPIC).
C. The Hague Convention:
1. International parental child abduction is a federal crime against an innocent child. In The United States, Congress must provide federal funding to all Chasing Parents left behind in order to assist in all legal expenses and recovery efforts criminally committed against a defenseless abducted child. Presently, the entire financial burden of an attempted child recovery is the responsibility of a Chasing Parent. For most, these heavy financial burdens are crippling, typically causing for a Chasing Parent to lose everything they may own to defend against a crime against their child or children. And it is important to note that legal strategies enacted by many abducting parents includes drawing things out in court to the point that the Chasing Parent can no longer financially afford the legal fight (for a Chasing Parent, the heavy costs include hiring lawyers at the place of original jurisdiction and the location where the child was taken to, private investigators [if necessary], child psychologist [if necessary], travel and lodging to and from the location where the child was abducted to, and costs for communications. This goes without saying that a Chasing Parent’s time will be primarily spent in dealing with the abduction of their child: work becomes very difficult while trying to defend your child).
2. The United States and other complying Hague-signatory governments must consider financial sanctions to be imposed against non-complying Hague-signatory governments when a nation that a child is abducted to does not comply with The Hague Convention they are a signatory of.
3. Diplomatic and economic efforts must be utilized at the highest degree to direct and press present non-Hague signatories to sign The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
4. Non-United States citizens found guilty of international child abduction under the orders of the Hague Court must not be permitted entrance into the United States.
5. Hague cases may be complex; however, the convention was created to establish a uniform set of international guidelines dealing with a child's jurisdiction and which nation's courts must oversee the overall welfare of a child. All cases must be streamlined, and, preventive measures must be taken by The Hague Courts to further narrow the potential time an appeal can be brought to court by an abducting parent who is in physical retention of a child and who refuses or disregards a return order to the location of the child's habitual residency.
6. There is no such thing as ‘Collateral Damage’ when a complying Hague-signatory country deals with either a non-complying Hague-signatory country or a country that has not signed the international treaty.
7. Courts upholding The Hague Convention must uphold the spirit of the convention with respect to the expeditious process to which it is governed to act.